First, let me reconstruct the left to right political spectrum which I believe all of Mr. Dionne's ilk believe.

On the extreme left are the Communists: Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Castro, Pol Pot, etc. Halfway between that extreme and the center are socialists, like Swedes or Danes. Just to the left of the center are the Democrats. Moving next to the right, pretty far from center are the squishy Republicans Dionne and his comrades can barely stand and way further to the right are the conservatives and then the Ku Klux Klan, and then, finally, the Nazis are on the extreme right.

It's an absurd view. The Democrats are now just barely to the right of the Swedes and Danes, and far from the center. The Ku Klux Klan's membership was 99.999% Democrats, so they belong on the left side of center; and the Nazis were socialists, national socialists as opposed to the international socialists of the USSR, etc., so they also don't belong on the right at all.

I see it slightly differently. A lot of really evil people are on the left. The modern Republican party is just to the right of center and the Tea Party conservatives are about halfway between center and the extreme right, which is where the American Founding Fathers reside. Once you realize E.J. has no accurate concept of the political spectrum and puts the Democrats just left of center and the Republicans way right of center, when it's the opposite, you get a clearer idea of how truly ignorant he is, and how worthless is his opinion on "extremism". So let's look at some of his Bizarro World article.

When this election is over, can we acknowledge that at least one big debate in American politics is settled? I am referring to the question of whether our two parties have moved equally far away from the political center, or whether the polarization in our politics is asymmetric.
The very fact of Donald Trump’s nomination should be seen as proof that the Republicans have strayed much further from middle-ground opinion. Advocates of the they’re-both-the-same view should finally throw in the towel.

Donald Trump was until recently a Democrat and I can assure you that the bulk of his principles are center left. He's smart enough (barely) and experienced enough in business to know that the conservatives are correct regarding the best way to create jobs and growth but that doesn't even get him within hailing distance of the Tea Party. Almost all of the Republican candidates for President since Reagan have been center right with some of their principles over the line into lefty land. And Reagan was just barely to the right of the Tea Party, a very good place to be but no real comparison to the geniuses of our founding revolutionaries.

But as bad as EJ's sense of history and misjudgment of the political spectrum are, that pales in comparison to his apparent definition of what is extreme. What Dionne considers extreme is just lame. First, Trump is aware that there is an awful lot of voter fraud by the Democrats and vows to contest the election if he gets cheated out of a win. How extreme! That was sarcasm. Only lefties could recognize lawlessness and someone opposing it extreme

Second, Republicans stand on principles and won't compromise to effectuate laws and policies that hurt America. (I'm glad we have that reputation; I just wish it was true). Compromise which screws people over is not a good thing and stopping bad things is not extreme. The Democrats count compromise as a very good thing because way too often the "compromise" the Republicans make is merely giving completely in to the wishes of the Democrats.

Here is a short, incomplete list of the things perpetrated by the Democrats which I count as extreme. You be the judge of my perception and the propriety of my outrage, all in contrast to EJ's picks.

The Democrats believe that it is the God given right of a female to abort her baby at any time, for any reason, without any say by the father or by that substantial portion of society which equates, properly, killing a fetus that could easily survive outside the womb with murder. And they believe this God given right is self evident and has always existed here. They also think you can find it, somewhere, somehow, in the Constitution although babies and abortion are not actually mentioned therein. You can't get more extreme on this subject than that without actually making abortion mandatory, and some on the left want to do that too. Not a lot of compromise in that position is there, EJ?

At the same time they're fanatics about a constitutional right that doesn't exist, the Democrats are just as fanatical about ending or severely eroding two of the Bill of Rights which really do exist.
Although there are few God given rights more clearly established than the right to life, that is, the right to resist, with deadly force, if necessary, being murdered, the Democrats think the clearly worded independent clause of the Second Amendment doesn't mean what it plainly says. I call that pretty extreme.

Although the freedom to speak true facts, or one's believed opinions, is as fundamental a right as we have, uniquely, as Americans, the Democrats think the First Amendment protection of speech doesn't apply to inconvenient facts or opinions that are unpopular with them. The Democrats don't engage in more speech in order to persuade, they shut people up. Shutting down the speech of unpopular speakers voicing opinions contrary to the beliefs of those shouting them down is as an extremely un-American an activity as is currently possible (although worse could be in store, if the history of the totalitarian left is any guide). And only the left, only Democrats and their fellow travelers, shut down speakers they don't like. There are about a thousand examples recently and several quite good books on the subject. We so-called extreme Republicans almost never prevent speech we don't like but rather we love to argue why the speech of the Democrats is illogical or just plain stupid, (which is just what I'm doing here with dimwit Dionne).

So, I ask the rational observer, which is more extreme --voicing an opinion which offends some people or not allowing someone to voice an opinion because it might offend someone?